Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

    not suspended, but de-activated.

    When asked why he wasn't at the game it's because Jim told him he didn't have to come.

    At first this was just a minor blip to me about covering up Jamaals abscense, but now it's just getting sad.

    Believe me, I understand that the team would like to avoid any negative headlines about any of our players least of all Jamaal.

    So I understood the injury story.

    However once you've been called on it, the worst thing you can do (btw it is what O'Brien is doing) is continue to lie about it but change your story all at the same time.

    Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

    The best thing he could have done and should have done from here on out is "no comment". Yes, guilt buy default but then you avoid the old ancient proverb of keeping silent and making everyone thing you are a fool vs. opening your mouth and proving it.

    Believe me, my tolerance for O'Brien is at rock bottom right now because I am still hopping mad at that Pheonix game.

    Oh well here is todays article

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04
    Indiana Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said Thursday his version of Jamaal Tinsley's absence from Wednesday's game "is the story I'm sticking with."


    O'Brien said before and after Wednesday's win over Golden State that Tinsley was inactive because of an injured left knee.
    Several people with knowledge of the situation, however, said Tinsley was "suspended" and "disciplined" after an incident during the team's film session the previous day.
    Thursday, O'Brien said he "deactivated" Tinsley.
    "As an NBA coach I have the ability and the right to deactivate any player I want," O'Brien said after practice Thursday. "I deactivated Jamaal and Ike (Diogu)."
    Diogu was at the game; Tinsley was not.
    Tinsley practiced Thursday and appeared to move well during the team's light workout. Afterward, he declined an interview request through a team spokesman.
    Most players this season, including Tinsley, have attended games and practices when injured.
    "Not if I tell him he doesn't have to show up for the game," O'Brien said, when asked why Tinsley wasn't there. "It's not the first time this year a player was deactivated that wasn't on the bench or here. That's totally up to the head coach. . . . What I told you (Wednesday) is the story I'm sticking with."
    Tinsley has been dealing with several injuries the past few weeks but is expected to play Saturday against Sacramento.
    "I intend to have him activated next game," O'Brien said.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    not suspended, but de-activated.

    When asked why he wasn't at the game it's because Jim told him he didn't have to come.

    At first this was just a minor blip to me about covering up Jamaals abscense, but now it's just getting sad.

    Believe me, I understand that the team would like to avoid any negative headlines about any of our players least of all Jamaal.

    So I understood the injury story.

    However once you've been called on it, the worst thing you can do (btw it is what O'Brien is doing) is continue to lie about it but change your story all at the same time.

    Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

    The best thing he could have done and should have done from here on out is "no comment". Yes, guilt buy default but then you avoid the old ancient proverb of keeping silent and making everyone thing you are a fool vs. opening your mouth and proving it.

    Believe me, my tolerance for O'Brien is at rock bottom right now because I am still hopping mad at that Pheonix game.

    Oh well here is todays article

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04
    Indiana Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said Thursday his version of Jamaal Tinsley's absence from Wednesday's game "is the story I'm sticking with."


    O'Brien said before and after Wednesday's win over Golden State that Tinsley was inactive because of an injured left knee.
    Several people with knowledge of the situation, however, said Tinsley was "suspended" and "disciplined" after an incident during the team's film session the previous day.
    Thursday, O'Brien said he "deactivated" Tinsley.
    "As an NBA coach I have the ability and the right to deactivate any player I want," O'Brien said after practice Thursday. "I deactivated Jamaal and Ike (Diogu)."
    Diogu was at the game; Tinsley was not.
    Tinsley practiced Thursday and appeared to move well during the team's light workout. Afterward, he declined an interview request through a team spokesman.
    Most players this season, including Tinsley, have attended games and practices when injured.
    "Not if I tell him he doesn't have to show up for the game," O'Brien said, when asked why Tinsley wasn't there. "It's not the first time this year a player was deactivated that wasn't on the bench or here. That's totally up to the head coach. . . . What I told you (Wednesday) is the story I'm sticking with."
    Tinsley has been dealing with several injuries the past few weeks but is expected to play Saturday against Sacramento.
    "I intend to have him activated next game," O'Brien said.

    "That's my story and I'm sticking to it" may be a cute Country music cliche but it is generally accepted to mean "I'm lying but I'll go to my grave with the lie". It really really sounds disengenuous.

    But then, when is the last time a CEO of a major company ever come out and spoke the truth....Our employees are our most important asset..being among the most prevalent. I doubt if "the truth" is ever really told to the public about much of anything. Because "You can't handle the truth" is widely believed.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

      What's the big scandal, Peck?

      An NBA coach does have the discretion to tell players where to be during the game. He can tell Foster to stand under the basket, can't he? And he can tell Tinsley to stay the hell home. It doesn't take any official act of suspension to put a player on the bench, nor does it require any official act to say, "Take a day off and rest your knee. While you're doing that, think about your future with this team and in this league."

      I contend that O'Brien has not lied at all. There IS a suspension process, and the Pacers did not employ it with respect to Tinsley. He was not suspended.

      As far as what actually happened during the film session, we still don't know and that is either O'Brien saying "No Comment" (Which you say he should have done.) or else the reporters failing to follow-up on the real story.

      This incident cannot be rightly evaluated until we see what happens next. If Tinsley shapes up, then O'Brien did the right thing. If Tinsley continues to screw around and the Pacers bench him, fine him, suspend him or trade him with the next incident, then O'Brien did the right thing this time. But if things continue to be screwy and inconsistent and management never does take hold of the problem, then you will have been right about this and O'Brien (and TPTB) will deserve your criticism.
      Last edited by Putnam; 01-18-2008, 09:03 AM.
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

        Suspension - not paid for the game

        Inactive - paid

        The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

        Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

        I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-18-2008, 09:23 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          What's the big scandal, Peck?

          An NBA coach does have the discretion to tell players where to be during the game. He can tell Foster to stand under the basket, can't he? And he can tell Tinsley to stay the hell home. It doesn't take any official act of suspension to put a player on the bench, nor does it require any official act to say, "Take a day off and rest your knee. While you're doing that, think about your future with this team and in this league."

          I contend that O'Brien has not lied at all. There IS a suspension process, and the Pacers did not employ it with respect to Tinsley. He was not suspended.

          As far as what actually happened during the film session, we still don't know and that is either O'Brien saying "No Comment" (Which you say he should have done.) or else the reporters failing to follow-up on the real story.

          This incident cannot be rightly evaluated until we see what happens next. If Tinsley shapes up, then O'Brien did the right thing. If Tinsley continues to screw around and the Pacers bench him, fine him, suspend him or trade him with the next incident, then O'Brien did the right thing this time. But if things continue to be screwy and inconsistent and management never does take hold of the problem, then you will have been right about this and O'Brien (and TPTB) will deserve your criticism.

          I agree for the most part with this.

          This could have well been a 1 game suspension "in spirit" while not being
          an official suspension. Depending on what precipitated it, it might just
          have been the most diplomatic way of handling the situation without being
          too heavy handed which may cause lingering ill feelings.

          We won the game that night, so right decisions appear to have been made.

          Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

            Yes. Take the coaches word at face value and quit speculating on this. OBie answered the question and I'm sure he had his reasons. Jack loves to stir up trouble in Indiana, and he succeeded without even being on our team!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

              Whats the old saying, "Don't get to high over a win, and don't get to low over a loss."

              I would say that proverb goes double for what you hear from the media nowdays. "Don't get to high over a good story, and don't get to low over a bad story." Especially a bad story, because news outlets always accentuate the negative.

              I agree with what Geezer said about, 'That's my story and I'm sticking to it.' That's just a bad way to state your case.

              This is said to have all come about over an 'incident during a film session.' We don't know exactly what happened, or what was said.

              Even if O'B told Tins he was suspended in front of the whole team, (and we don't know that he did) he has the power to change a suspension to instead putting a player on the inactive list. If that's the case then O'B isn't lying about the result.

              Mostly I blame Mike Well's and his gossip type reporting. He doesn't do his job like newsmen used to do and get the facts before reporting, he just writes hearsay and enough to cause controversy.


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                Made Inactive for disciplinary as well as health reasons could easily devolve to Suspended in casual conversation with a bud (sic).

                If JOB did what UB says, it would feel like a suspension and JT would whine about it as a suspension.

                Therefore, in an odd way, both are right - one is using the word casually while the other is sticking to the legal/contract definition.

                After all, if it was a deactivation with a "don't show up" clause, JOB and the Pacers would get in big trouble with the PA for calling it a suspension since they didn't follow the process. JT and SJ and others aren't under the same constraints.

                Note: it doesn't change my feelings. If there was an incident at a film session I still feel Tinsley's an idiot for biting the hand that feeds him. Sorry, he isn't AI.
                Last edited by BillS; 01-18-2008, 10:11 AM. Reason: Additional info
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Suspension - not paid for the game

                  Inactive - paid

                  The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

                  Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

                  I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.
                  completely agree.
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                    Suspension/vacation/day off whatever, it really isn't pertinent to what the fans are being told. It's the lack of forthright honesty that I'm whining about.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                      Methinks that Peck doth protest too much.

                      Originally posted by Peck
                      Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

                      OK, I did listen to the show. And I think you are out of line on this.

                      What O'Brien says is, "Consider the source." That is entirely appropriate. No opposing player has the right to speak for the Pacers. It is a non-issue that it happened to be Jackson, and O'Brien said nothing particular or specific about it being Jackson.

                      O'Brien did not call Jackson a liar, or even imply that he is a liar. All O'Brien said was "Consider the source." All that implies is that Jackson is not a reliable or authoritative source for information about the Pacers.

                      Anybody got a problem with that?
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                        Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                        Suspension/vacation/day off whatever, it really isn't pertinent to what the fans are being told. It's the lack of forthright honesty that I'm whining about.
                        How do you know your not getting forthright honesty? Why come down on one side without proper evidence?

                        With me it's a case of, "he said, she said." I don't know who's telling the truth or who's lying, or if it's just a matter of semantics like Bills said.

                        Either way, ask yourself who's the bad guys in this whole thing? O'B who had a confrontation with Tins and he wants to keep it quiet. Or those who want to drag it out in the open? (Jackson and Wells)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          How do you know your not getting forthright honesty? Why come down on one side without proper evidence?

                          With me it's a case of, "he said, she said." I don't know who's telling the truth or who's lying, or if it's just a matter of semantics like Bills said.

                          Either way, ask yourself who's the bad guys in this whole thing? O'B who had a confrontation with Tins and he wants to keep it quiet. Or those who want to drag it out in the open? (Jackson and Wells)

                          How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                            Its just more crap that Pacer fans have to deal with that I'm far past my limit of putting up with.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                              How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.
                              I don't appreciate the fracturiousness of your comment.......
                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X